The British government already owns land in West Jerusalem dedicated to a new embassy in Israelaccording to briefing notes sent to pro-Israel Conservative MPs seen by Middle Eastern Eyes.

The notes have been distributed by pressure group Conservative Friends of Israel (IFC) as part of a campaign to support Prime Minister Liz Truss’ controversial decision, announced last month, to review the location of the British embassy.

CFI director James Gurd sent the note to lawmakers outlining the Jerusalem case last Saturday, on the eve of this week’s party conference in Birmingham, along with “suggested responses to cases” for deputies to send to their constituents.

MEE has looked at both documents.

Briefing notes He says that moving the British embassy from its current location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would be a “bureaucratic move that acknowledges the reality on the ground”.

He also said: “It is understood that the British Government already owns land in West Jerusalem to build an embassy there”, a revelation implying that Liz Truss could be willing to make the move when it happens.

great zionists

CFI explains double target such as “supporting Israel and promoting conservatism in the UK”.

It claims to act at all levels of the Conservative Party and is believed to have 80% of Conservative MPs among its members.

On Sunday, Truss and other cabinet ministers attended an event organized by CFI to mark the opening of the party conference, and they notify those present that he was “a great Zionist and a great supporter of Israel”.

In IFC’s annual Informed magazine, published to coincide with the conference, Truss said: “I understand the importance and sensitivity of the location of the British embassy in Israel and I am committed to conducting a review to ensure that we operate in better conditions within Israel.

Speaking at an IFC event on Sunday, Conservative Party Chairman Jake Berry went a step further and appeared to preempt Truss’s review results when he pledged “my steadfast commitment as party chairman that we will continue to build a strong relationship with the State of Israel and support it in its fight to ensure that it remains safe and that the capital in Jerusalem is home to our new embassy.”

READ: EU prioritizes Abraham Deal

Health Minister Robert Jenrick also touched on land owned by the British government where an embassy could be built.

Jenrick said: “We have a piece of land in Jerusalem waiting to be built. It’s time we take our responsibility and build that embassy and recognize that the real capital of the State of Israel is definitely Jerusalem.”

CFI’s “working response” provided draft letters to MPs to send to their constituents, which included the text: “I welcome Prime Minister Liz Truss’s promise to review the location of the British Embassy in Israel”.

A CFI spokesman rejected MEE’s suggestion that the organization was lobbying Tory MPs for the move.

A spokesperson said: “This is a one-page briefing note of the kind we send out on any issue.”

CFI President Eric Pickles told MEE: “The embassy move is fully compatible with the two-state solution and does not make any decisions about the final border. This is a very moderate step.”

dramatic difficulty

Truss’s decision to review the embassy’s location is a dramatic departure from the established policy of the British government, which has persisted through every prime minister from Margaret Thatcher to Boris Johnson.

Former British Prime Minister Theresa May strongly condemned the move, noting in a December 2017 statement issued in response to the US administration’s decision to move its embassy to Jerusalem: “We believe it is useless in terms of prospects for peace in the region… In line with Council resolutions Security relevant, we consider East Jerusalem to be part of the occupied Palestinian territories.”

His position was reaffirmed by the British government as recently as December 2021.

“The UK’s position on the status of Jerusalem is clear and longstanding: it must be determined in a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians,” Britain’s political coordinator at the United Nations said in a speech, adding that Britain “is opposed to unilateral action in Jerusalem without a final status agreement and continue to support the historic status quo.”

Professor Emeritus of International Relations at the University of Oxford, Avi Shlaim, supported this longstanding view of the British government when he wrote at MEE last week: “Moving the embassy to Jerusalem would violate a number of UN resolutions and would be a sharp reversal of British politics since 1967”.

Shlaim added that “this policy, which is part of a broad international consensus, has stated that all embassies must remain in Tel Aviv until a comprehensive peace agreement is reached between Israel and the Palestinians, with Jerusalem as the joint capital of the two states.” “.

READ: Why is Israel allowed to annex occupied land, but Russia is not?

The ICC briefing note disputes this, stating that moving the embassy to Jerusalem “will not prevent Palestinians from establishing their capital in East Jerusalem in the future, nor will it change Britain’s longstanding view that the city’s future status is a matter to be negotiated.” between Israel and Palestine in bilateral negotiations.

He also stated: “Under a realistic two-state solution, West Jerusalem would remain under Israeli control – this has been accepted in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations for decades.”

He noted that the United States had recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, as had “Taiwan, Nauru, Honduras, Guatemala, and Kosovo.”

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mohammad Shtayyeh said Monday that moving the embassy would “encourage” “the occupying powers” and “undermine” the chances of a two-state solution.

This article first appeared in English at Middle Eye East on October 4, 2022

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of East Monitor.